Who shouldn’t vote?

Looking back over the last few days, I have come to the conclusion that the Left’s argument of “disenfranchisement” is nothing more than a political fairy tale.  There is no factual basis  conclude that the poor and minorities will be “disenfranchised” by voter ID laws.  It’s all fear mongering and conjecture, in my opinion.  Do we really need voter ID laws?  I don’t feel that has been proven as of yet,  I do feel that proof of residency should be required everywhere, which in many ways, it is. I think same day registration is a bigger problem than the ID issue! 🙂  Let’s go deeper into the voting subject and ask, who shouldn’t be permitted to vote?  People under 18 years of age can’t vote.  That is the current law.  Who else should or shouldn’t be on the list?  I will begin that subject by saying that I’m leaning toward those on long term welfare benefits lose their voting rights after a certain time period (no more welfare queens!).   My mind is open on this subject, so let’s tackle these issues,  the last few days have been great discussion! 🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I would like to give a big “Thanks” to Mathius and Buck for their participation and input in the recent discussion. KUDO’s 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      A fat lot of good it did, seeing what you wrote above..

      But, at the very least, I hope you better understand our position now. If so, I will consider it time well spent.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I think everybody who reads here understand your position. As I said, it was a good discussion that really had some positive value for both sides 🙂

  2. Black Flag® says:

    No one should vote.
    Its a waste of time.

    • I am not terribly surprised. You see, there is “Them” and there is the rest of us.

      Son # 2 just started a new job about two weeks ago. The technical end of oil and byproducts getting from point A to B to C etc. by pipeline. He’s is a bright guy, 32 with a MS in Env. Science and a Major’s commission in the Air Force in maintenance and logistics New guy arrives yesterday. He is 28 and has all the answers. He starts telling my son how they are going to “improve” things. Experience, zero, knowledge zero, balls, huge. Like I said, there is “Them” and there is us.

    • Was it supposed to create jobs-I thought it was more about giving people who could afford to buy a new car a break on the price while destroying the used car markets so the people who couldn’t afford to buy a new car were hurt.

  3. Scene Two: Camera focuses in on Todd (still banging his head against the wall):

    Todd, thinking to himself: “I don’t understand these conservative wackos. I need help on how to explain things on Obamacare. What can I do? I know, I will call the Messiah myself and I know he will talk to me because I am championing his cause.”

    Todd, walks over to phone and dials and the phone connects: ” One ringy dingy…….two ringy dingies” the phone picks up…”Is this the party to whom I am speaking.”

    Obama: ” Yes, Todd, this is the Messiah. errr, the President…How may I help?”

    Todd: “Sir, I am having a problem explaining the principle behind your signature legislation…Obamacare.”

    Obama: ” There is nothing to explain, my son. I am the I AM and what I say is golden.”

    Todd: “But Sir, you campaigned on this and one of your promises was that if you wanted to keep your insurance, there would be no problem. And now, it is coming out that there are possibly millions that will not be able to keep their insurance. How do I explain this?”

    Obama: ” My son, that was an election year. Nothing that I said needed to be true. It only needed to be believed.”

    Todd: ” But now, you even have your own party denouncing things and it makes it difficult to champion your cause.”

    Obama: “Calm down, my son, for the power of the press is still behind me. We need to now turn the focus on those nasty insurance companies and make people believe that they had inferior health coverage to begin with, therefore, it is not a lie but that it was a vision, a prophecy that they would be better off. We must make them believe that the insurance company is the culprit and that they were dropped out of greed.”

    Todd: “Yes sir, I see, but the people negotiated those health agreements to fit their specific needs. How do I fight this?”

    Obama: (turns on synthesizer and a booming echoing voice trumpets through the receiver)..”I AM THE I AM. I know what is best for the people. They do not know.”

    Todd: “Yes sir, I understand but how do I explain to a 60 year old family that they lose their health coverage because it does not meet the minimum requirements set forth under Obamacare, and that they must have a policy that covers things they do not need or want. How do I explain that they no longer have a choice? And, how do I explain that the premiums are going to be much higher as a result.?

    Obama: ” Son, you must convince the people that they are better off and that their insurance was inferior and even though they do not need the coverage they are forced to pay for, tell them to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and to Obama that which is Obama’s. They do not need to know that I am both. I AM THE I AM.”

    (The phone suddenly clicks off and a steady buzz heard on the other end of the line) Todd, feeling giddy from talking to the Messiah (and having that chill in his legs) turns and looks at the Sufa-ites still in their routine from a couple of days ago…that is still some miniskirt…and what is with all the shoes piled up…..wondering how to convince the independent minded and the far right, and the zealots………………………….turns back and starts banging his head against the wall once more not realizing that an image of Charlie, in devil’s horns, was sitting on his shoulder, eating Cannoli……..laughing……and saying “Oy Vey………………………………………..

  4. Happy Halloween ALL: Tonight, your very own D13 and some of his minions are going to dress up for a children’s Halloween party at the base……(Carswell, now known as NASJRB Fort Worth) being that well known Mexican bandit……Pancho Villa and his gang. We are all going to wear sombrero’s and serapes……take a picture and send to the PC police.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    With bad weather on top of us here in PA, Let me throw myself under the bus and start this chat. Yesterday, Buck and I had a short chat on the subject of taxes and voting. I stated that those on long term WELFARE should lose the privilege of voting. So let me continue with this. First. those on longterm welfare are nothing but moochers. They expect/demand “their” money each month to care for their family.

    Why, I ask, should moochers be allowed to vote for and elect “looters” who only steal from the “producers” to fund these people? The privilege of voting should never include voting yourself money from the taxpayers (although this is currently rampant). These people are capable of working, but CHOOSE not to because they get their money from the taxpayers. It is not uncommon to find that many welfare recipients receive more money a month than do our 100% disabled vets do. This alone should be a crime. But, non the less, it is factual.

    So, this is my choice as to who shouldn’t be permitted to vote and the reasons why. Bash away my Liberal friends 🙂

    • “First. those on longterm welfare are nothing but moochers. They expect/demand “their” money each month to care for their family.”

      You seem very confident in your assertion, G. Do you really believe (I know it’s impossible to actually know this) that everyone on long term welfare is a moocher? And for someone who believes voting is absurd in the first place, why would you care who votes?

      Me, I also believe it’s absurd to vote when the deck is so awfully rigged (2 party virtual participation) … but I could care less who votes and/or whether they’re on welfare or not.

    • I vote NO-the government practices has made it almost impossible for people not to be on some sort of welfare and terms like loooooog can be abused-if your an American citizen you get to vote. Now I know there are some laws on the books like committing a felony that causes one to lose the right to vote-we could talk about those.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        VH, so when a candidate wants to triple your taxes to give them a big fat raise, is it still OK?

        • I believe every individual should have a voice. Kinda what this Country is supposed to stand for in my mind.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I used to think that way. This country isn’t what it was when I was young. So, if Senator Looter, leads the charge to triple your taxes and wins, you will just smile and say “well, they had their right to be heard” as you now find yourself with LESS takehome pay as them?

            • VH is NOT THE PROBLEM G!!! Don’t turn your didain of politicians or politics into an attack on people who vote. How bout channel some of that energy into changing the way things get done. That involves voting! How else are you going to change things? I don’t want you to tell me how bad and corrupt everyone is. I want to hear how else you can change it.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Anita, I’m discussing “who shouldn’t vote”. I’m inquiring about changing the system. I’m not attacking V, just giving her examples of what “could” happen, in support of my position. No, VH is certainly not the problem. Am I not pointing out and defending my position on who shouldn’t vote in a nice manner? Help me out here Anita 🙂

              • I realize you’re speaking in general. But you always attack the voter as though we’re the problem. Are there clueless voters..yes. They are part of the problem. But voting and casting votes is not the problem.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m excluding my feelings on voting in general and focusing on what we do have now. I’m sticking with the theme “who shouldn’t vote”, nothing more.

              • What does your comment to V about Senator Looter have to do with who shouldn’t vote? You’re basically asking V why she votes for someone who is going to loot her.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Anita, as an example, Senator Looter was elected because he ran on raising taxes to give those on welfare raises. He was elected by those who agreed. Sorry I wasn’t clear enough 😦

          • gmanfortruth says:

            How everyone in the room had a voice, 1 voted no, five voted yes, end result http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/saudi-islamists-gang-rape-3-year-old-girl-rupturing-her-insides/

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Do you really believe (I know it’s impossible to actually know this) that everyone on long term welfare is a moocher?

    No, it’s impossible for all of them to be classified as such. I’m guessing that some are disabled and need to be switched over.

    And for someone who believes voting is absurd in the first place, why would you care who votes?

    Yes, I feel voting is useless, but it is here and all aspects can be discussed. I’m starting a discussion and throwing in some controversy to start things off. But keep things in mind, I’m not saying that the welfare folks should lose their free, stolen money, just the privilege to vote 🙂

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    If you do not pay taxes you do not vote.

    • I disagree. I sure want you and the colonel to vote when you’re 85. I think someone like CyndiP who works tax free should be allowed a vote.

      There should be some sort of a test before elections to weed out the clueless on the street types. Not sure how to accomplish that but it should be done.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        I am pretty sure that the Colonel and I will both be paying taxes when we are 85.

        If Cyndi P does not pay taxes then she should NOT vote.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why shouldn’t disabled vets who are on 100% disability and don’t pay taxes lose their privilege?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I mean, why should they lose the privilege?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Why should a disabled veteran NOT have to pay his/her fair share of taxes??

        • gmanfortruth says:

          JAC, I put a monetary value on veterans disability that is equal to lifetime of taxes they would have paid had they not become disabled serving the country.

    • JAC: you do realize that people do, in fact, have ‘skin in the game’ (as you like to call it) even absent paying taxes right?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, I agree with you here. What about my position? It’ll never happen, but it’s fun to talk about. Is there anyone group that you think shouldn’t vote (please don’t say the Tea Party 🙂 )?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Some do and some do not.

        But to be specific, I am not talking about “indirect” taxation.

        IF taxes are a cost of being a “citizen” in a “civilized country” then ONLY those who pay taxes should VOTE.

        • What kind of taxes are you talking about? Income, property, personal property, sales tax, capital gains, gas tax, school tax? I assumed you were talking income tax .If not, then Cyndi pays prop tax. Is she ineligible in JACland?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Good question. My assumption would be ANY tax you pay gives you votes toward the respective entity which collected said tax.

            Paying federal income tax paid gives you votes at the federal level.
            Paying state sales tax gives you votes at the state level.
            Paying property tax gives you votes at the local level.

            Et cetera.

    • That should leave the entire Kennedy Family out.

  8. gmanfortruth says:
  9. This whole discussion borders on the comical….if it wasn’t so sad…

    And then you guys wonder why all of us liberals tend to disappear some days….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Actually, it is funny, like Obama Presidency 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Buck, do you think Obama lied to the public about keeping their plans and doctor?

    • Buck, agreed- this discussion is pretty ridiculous.

      G- you are barking up the wrong tree. You said in part: “I will begin that subject by saying that I’m leaning toward those on long term welfare benefits lose their voting rights after a certain time period (no more welfare queens!).”

      Really? You think THAT is the magic bullet that will get them off welfare? I can just see the welfare queens saying….Dammit! I can’t vote if I stay on welfare? I’m going out right now and get a job!

      Why not enact regulations that become more strict the longer one is on assistance? Make it really hard to become a permanent “moocher”…..that is, if the person is really mooching. I know the devil is in the details here- not trying to take an honest person who is truly disabled off of the help needed…but we all know that the moochers abound. I’d rather direct energy into getting rid of the government teat-suckers. Unfortunately, it’s easy to say, hard to do.

      Murf

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Murf, we can talk about anything you desire, at any time. This is an open forum. Now, will not allowing the Moochers to vote fix anything? NOT AT ALL! But, that’s been my whole point. Start a discussion on who should be on WELFARE and who should be kicked off, say in 6 months. I have plenty of ideas on the subject, some of which the lefties would even like 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      And what part is comical and what part is “so sad”??

      Better yet, why?

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Out of state (non-resident) “college students” should NOT be able to vote in any State or Local elections in the State where they are attending school.

    The same should hold true for non-residents temporarily living in a State due to work or other assignments.

    • Isn’t that covered by their permanent address, anyway? If they are registered in their home state/county, they vote absentee. So the issue here is not that they can’t vote…but where they vote.

      Murf

      • Just A Citizen says:

        dmurf

        Actually it is a very real issue. Because the Dems have managed to get various laws passed allowing them to vote in the State where they attend school.

        They are NOT a resident of the State in any sense but because they live in a town to go to school they can vote.

        And by the way, this is one area where people have admitted to voting in TWO states.

        But you are correct in that this is a WHERE issue. But WHERE is obviously tied to WHO gets to and who does not.

    • This is an issue here. They are told to vote absentee at home address and their student id is acceptable to vote again on campus.

      The WI legislature also is working on a nursing home voter fraud bill. Fraud happens all over and to claim it doesn’t exist is either horribly naive or agreeable to the fraud.

  11. Sorry- should have clarified….any discussion of who shouldn’t vote (among those otherwise eligible) is ridiculous.

    If anything, the discussion should be…who shouldn’t get welfare.

    Murf

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Why is it ridiculous?

      As for the welfare issue I don’t care. If they pay taxes then they get to vote.

      • Just my opinion, JAC…..I think it is ridiculous to talk of taking away the right to vote among adults who otherwise are eligible (over 18, not convicted of a felony, for instance). I believe in the founding principle that we are a nation that votes for our representatives.

        A much better goal would be to get those who are too lazy to work off of government assistance.

        But I also believe that there should not be an income level below which one pays no taxes.
        Again, just my opinion.

        Murf

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Well then if everyone pays taxes the issue is resolved, isn’t it.

          We discuss many things that require serious change from the status quo.

          Let’s not forget that Democracy was viewed as obnoxious to freedom when our Founders established this country. That ALL men were not given the Privilege of voting.

          There were sound reasons for many of these exclusions. While there may be other solutions the issues underlying them are pretty much the same.

          Welfare is an entirely separate issue in my view. Although ELIMINATING ALL WELFARE would help reduce the impact of the takers and slugs having a control over my life.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    New Idea

    NOBODY should VOTE for national elections.

    We should set up a DRAFT to select Representatives. Create a list of 50 people.

    Go down the list from first to last until someone AGREES to go to DC for their designated term.

    So NO voting and still Voluntary.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      eliminate lifetime benefits for them first. Then you will get a better class of representative.

  13. Mathius™ says:

    A thought experiment – I am not actually suggesting this, but I would be interested in people’s opinions:

    Everyone, legal citizen or not, minor or adult, may cast a vote.

    BUT your vote counts in proportion to what you paid in taxes (net of what you received directly / indirectly in benefits).

    Forget, for the moment, how stupidly complicated such a scheme would be to implement given the creative dodges people would come up with. Just take the question at face-value.

    • OK, Mathius…taking it at face value…but help me out. I don’t understand what you mean by “what you paid in taxes (net of what you received directly / indirectly in benefits). Can you explain?

      But aside from that question, my first thought is that gives more power to the wealthy who pay more taxes, and less to those who paid less or none at all. Wouldn’t that give the “evil rich” 😉 all the power?

      Murf

      • Mathius™ says:

        I don’t understand what you mean by “what you paid in taxes (net of what you received directly / indirectly in benefits). Can you explain?

        It means what it says. You pay X, but receive Y, then you’re vote corresponds to X-Y.

        For example, if you pay $1mm in taxes, but you received a business subsidy of $250,000 for your private business, you get $750k worth of votes.

        The point here is that you can keep your net low while pumping up your gross. For example, if this weren’t in place, a rich person could pay $1B in taxes every year, but receive back some nonsense subsidy / credit (think “soil banking” etc) for 999.9mm and only pay 1k total (net) in taxes while getting $1B worth of votes (because he paid $1B in taxes) (gross).

        Does this make sense?

      • Mathius™ says:

        But aside from that question, my first thought is that gives more power to the wealthy who pay more taxes, and less to those who paid less or none at all. Wouldn’t that give the “evil rich” 😉 all the power?

        Yes. Yes it would.

        And from a liberal standpoint, it’s a nightmare scenario.

        HOWEVER, from a conservative standpoint, I would think this should be a winner.

        Government will be run by the people who pay for it. The “moochers” (the 47%) get no say in anything. And there’s no incentive to give yourself goodies from the government, because you’d (A) be paying for them yourself thus negating the benefit of (B) weakening your own power/influence in the government thus leaving the door open for others to take those goodies away.

        • “sigh” I feel so misunderstood! The last thing in the world I would want to happen is for people’s votes to have proportional value based on how much money they pay in taxes.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I don’t think you think this way. In fact, I don’t really think anyone thinks this way. I just wanted to see some opinions from conservatives about the idea.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.

            His scheme is actually quite clever. If I want to have power via voting I must pay MORE taxes.

            If I then use that power to impose greater tax on you then you will have greater voting power next time, compared to me.

            If I use that power to reduce my taxes or to get free cookies then next time I lose the additional voting power,

            A constant give and take, push and pull.

            I think it would not take long for a balance to be reached that reflected the “acceptable” balance most people hold between what THEY consider fair taxation and Govt services.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Good concept but lets use a simpler solution.

      FLAT TAX on all CITIZENS.

      Proportions are constant as is the WEIGHT of each person’s vote.

      Benefits from Govt should be included in the “taxable” category. This eliminates the need for calculating “net”.

      • Mathius™ says:

        FLAT TAX on all CITIZENS.

        That was not the question.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          It simplifies your proposal. No need to calculate, report or identify NET or anything else.

          Although it dose NOT give special weight to anyone.

          Same tax rate and Same Voting power.

          • Mathius™ says:

            (A) It is not my proposal. I hate the idea. It is a thought experiment.

            (B) The whole point of the question is ‘what if we gave special weight based on taxes paid’ so saying “it does not give special weight” is not “simplifying” anything. It is changing the question.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              OK, I’ll stick with the purity of your proposition.

              As I told V, I think it has merit. Quite clever in fact.

              You shouldn’t hate it at all. It might actually create more balance.

              Although I wonder what the actual Goal of the concept is suppose to be. Do you know?

              • Mathius™ says:

                No idea. It was just bouncing around in my head – thought I’d throw it out there and see what happens.

                I think the probably is that the entire system would get quickly corrupted by loopholes. If it could stay “pure,” I don’t know that I’d hate it, but I think rich people would find ways to get their goodies “off the books.” I also think that there’s nothing in this system which protects the poor / lower-class from abuse by the rich – just because you can’t “tax” them without giving them power doesn’t mean you can’t compel them in other ways to their detriment and in favor of the wealthy. For example, getting rid of worker-safety rights, or sexual harassment protections or environmental protections, etc. The rich would just abolish these and the poor wouldn’t be able to do anything about it under this system.

                Further, it could lead to a self-perpetuating cycle where (A) the poor have no money (B) so they pay no taxes (C) so the rich right the rules (D) so the rules favor the rich to the detriment of the poor (E) which keeps the rich rich (F) and the poor poor (G) so that the poor have no money (H) so they pay no taxes .. and so on.

              • And, the pure system, would eliminate the need for estate planning and lawyers…….hmmmmm!

            • He’s got you there-so is the discussion really about people not having the right to vote based on taxes paid or whether all people should have to pay some small amount of taxes. I’m with Murf – messing with people’s right to vote isn’t the way to solve our problems.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                Why not? Just because they have become used to voting?

                Everyone did not used to get to vote. Why should they now?

                Why should non property owners be voting on property taxes, for example.

                Why should those not paying income tax get to vote on income tax levels?

                Why should those who don’t know that Benghazi is NOT RUNNING against Hillary Clinton for President be allowed to vote for President?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                The issue in my view is WHO should have the authority to Vote.

                I use TAXES because it reflects the ethical relationship of the left. “Taxes are the cost of citizenship”.

                Well if taxes are the cost and voting is the benefit then no taxes, no voting.

                I am not trying to solve issues of tax equity or welfare.

                I am trying to address the contradictions between our moral and ethical standards and our political system.

                Frankly, in my view, people who do not have a vested interest in their community and who do not participate in it should not be given the same authority over running it as those who who do. Taxes is just one of the easiest examples of being “vested” as opposed to being someone who “takes”.

                Voting gives people the power to IMPOSE upon others. So that power should be limited to those who have to PAY the price of that imposition. Again, taxes are just one example.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                VH, voting is not a “right” per say, it is a privilege granted by the Constitution. Say that voting is a right is no different than saying that having health insurance is a right, which it IS NOT. But, I can see your point and understand your feelings on the matter, but even today, we have good people who work and pay taxes, but can’t vote. Do you know who they are?

              • That all sounds so logical and I do see the ability to vote in your own personal benefits as a problem-but I just think it’s a bad premise-I believe in the American dream-One may not own property today but they might next year and they will have to live under the laws passed. I kinda like the idea that we are all in this together-somehow not allowing my fellow citizens the right to vote because they aren’t doing as well as others just doesn’t sit right with me.

              • VH,

                That’s because you realize that having ‘skin in the game’ doesn’t depend on paying taxes. 🙂

              • Maybe, but that brings something to mind-I may believe that citizens should have the right or privilege to vote. But I have a real problem with all these get out the vote agenda’s. I think setting up tables or whatever to make it easier to register but going out and almost forcing people to register is an agenda and it makes me very suspicious.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          What about those with a NEGATIVE NET tax rate??

          Can we impose “indentured servant” status on them, maybe, please!

          • Mathius™ says:

            No, but you can make it detrimental – that is, it piles up as ‘debt-like’ and they don’t get to vote until their CUMULATIVE is positive.

            This seems.. I don’t know.. punitive though..

            • Just A Citizen says:

              OK, I can go with Voter Deficits. You must have a Voter Surplus before you can vote again.

              Only one remaining clarification on your part. WHAT are you considering “subsidies” in this proposal?

              I know many on the left consider tax deductions as an “expense”. So are you counting these types of things or just the actual CASH expenses. Like private and corporate welfare payments/subsidies.

              For example, all homeowners get the mortgage interest deduction. So does this count as a “subsidy”? Or is it only those deductions that are NOT available to everyone?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I suppose it would be however big of a check you cut to the government when taxes are due minus the value of any goodies they supply to you (ie, subsidies to your business, or the value of your medicare, or the expense when the fire department saved your house, etc).

                Total out minus total in.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Further, it could lead to a self-perpetuating cycle where (A) the poor have no money (B) so they pay no taxes (C) so the rich right the rules (D) so the rules favor the rich to the detriment of the poor (E) which keeps the rich rich (F) and the poor poor (G) so that the poor have no money (H) so they pay no taxes .. and so on.”

    Maybe not. Seems that would all depend on the PRORATION and Weight given.

    The poor would still pay some tax and would therefore still Vote. While their vote may count ONE, they out number the Rich 99 to 1.

    I do see the point on other laws/factors that could affect the poor without giving money to the Rich. Although much of that would also fall on the rich, like poisoned water.

    As for some of you other examples, like work safety rules, maybe those shouldn’t be GOVT controlled anyway.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I can see the rich willingly paying all the taxes and eliminating the poor vote all together. The power and control they would have would allow them to do things to get richer and richer, and then we’re right back to where we are today. Aren’t we talking about changes?

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    What about this situation? Should the LGBT people be denied a vote? http://godfatherpolitics.com/12710/nearly-200-cities-pass-laws-discriminating-christians/

    Doesn’t freedom of religion also come with NOT ACCEPTING anything against your beliefs and say so? This may be a different subject, but that’s OK.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Only in America does not tolerating intolerance count as discrimination against Christians.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Why do someones religious beliefs equate to intolerance? It is a RIGHT to have religious freedom. It is not a right to not be offended.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Why do someones religious beliefs equate to intolerance?

          Just because it’s religious-based doesn’t make it not intolerant.

          Tolerance is definitionally a question of being accepting of people. If you are not accepting, then your reasons are irrelevant – you are intolerant.

          You have the ABSOLUTE, UNQUESTIONED RIGHT to your religion.

          You do NOT have the right to act on that religion in certain ways. For example, you cannot take more than one wife, you cannot practice human sacrifice, et cetera. Additionally, now you cannot act or speak in an intolerant fashion toward homosexuals.

          The penalty is that you can’t do business with the city of Austin. So be it.

          You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want. And if you want to wear that “gay people suck” shirt, feel free. But then the city is going to refuse to do business with you.

          It is not a right to not be offended.

          If your religious beliefs were that black people are inferior, should the city have no right to refuse to work with you when you show up with a “I hate n****rs” shirt?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sorry, but these politicians who make laws like this PISS me off. I don’t care if someone is gay, but if my beliefs said differently, then I have the right to say so. IF I wanted to wear a shirt that says “gay men suck, literally”, then I should have the right to do so. If someone don’t like it, tough shit, there is nor Right that says you can’t be offended.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Sure you do. And the city has the right to refuse to do business with you.

        • See, now somebody gets to define “discrimination” again. If I don’t believe in gay marriage do I discriminate? If I don’t allow gays in my store, do I discriminate? If my religion precludes accepting homosexuality as a lifestyle, do I discriminate? If I think a thirteen year old boy should not be allowed to use the girls bathroom because he “identifies” as a female, do I discriminate? Fine can of worms that!

          • Mathius™ says:

            If I don’t believe in gay marriage do I discriminate?

            Yes.

            From our friends at Dictionary.com
            dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
            noun
            1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
            2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

            You are treating “Marriage” differently for one group of people than another on something “other than the merit.”

            “But- But-” Gman sputters! “They think their gayness is part and parcel of the ‘merit’ of whether they should marry!”

            To which Mathius replies: “They’re wrong, sorry. Thanks for playing.”

            If I don’t allow gays in my store, do I discriminate?

            Yes.

            That is discrimination.

            Again, the question of whether you should allow someone in your store is not related to their genders / sexual-orientation. If you decide to judge based on that, then this is discrimination.

            If my religion precludes accepting homosexuality as a lifestyle, do I discriminate?

            Yes.

            The reason for your discrimination does not change the fact that it is still discrimination.

            If you hate black people because your religion says so, that doesn’t make you any less bigoted than someone who hates black people because one stole his bike as a kid.

            If I think a thirteen year old boy should not be allowed to use the girls bathroom because he “identifies” as a female, do I discriminate?

            Yes.

            But this is, as you say, a can of worms and is, I feel, more complicated than I want to get into right here / right now.

            Short version, there should only be ONE type of bathroom, every stall/urinal should be 100% blocked off verse any shared space (ie, sinks), and everyone should use the same bathroom. There is no reason for separation. I think the future will (eventually) bear me out that it is inherently unnecessary to split males and females and inherently discriminatory to compel a self-identified male/female to use a specific bathroom for a gender with which he/she does not identify.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Sure you do. And the city has the right to refuse to do business with you.

          Then isn’t that discrimination also? Seems to me it works both ways, If I can’t discriminate against you, then what right do you have to discriminate against me?

          • Mathius™ says:

            No.

            Because discrimination can be boiled down to “treating folks differently [worse] for no good reason.”

            SO: for example, it is not discrimatory for the city to build a wheelchair at the hospital but not at your office because there is a good reason for the one at the hospital but not at your office. This is a disctinction which justifies the diferrent treatment.

            HOWEVER: it IS discriminator for the city to give you all sorts of goodies [tax / benefits / etc] because you love a woman and committed your life to her while denying Buck the same because he loves Charlie and committed his life to him. This IS discriminatory because there is no good reason for it.

            • Buck and Charlie?…..you sure you want human sacrifice off the table?

              • Don’t worry, it is coming. Just like Sharia Law and Honor killings. There will be good excuses all revolving around cultural diversity and making value judgements and discrimination.

            • The word discriminate is interesting because, well, I can discriminate against wines preferring one over the other . The phrase, “having discriminating taste” comes to mind.

              The straw that broke my back this morning was the awarding of $ 40,000 plus $ 32,000 in legal fees to a woman in NY who parades around topless and not at the beach either. The police seem to think that there is something wrong with this. The “Courts!!!” have held that she has a constitutional right to do so.

              As usual something which has been the societal norm and custom for several thousand years in most societies has been thrown to the curb by an unelected judge. Seems to me that just about any societal norm can suffer the same fate from public copulating to public masturbation (think there already is some case law on this) to polygamy. But, then again, we have gained yet another freedom in New York City today! Hooray, 18year olds are prohibited from smoking (tobacco only, grass is ok)! Hosanna! Will wonders never cease?

              • Ah Stephen, I congratulation you on being able to comment without losing it-I sense that you are fighting very hard to contain yourself. 🙂 I simply decided to stay silent until I stop ranting at the room, the universe, whoever is unlucky enough to walk through the room.

            • I don’t know how to respond, but if Charlie supplies the Italian food and plenty of sfogliatelle, we’ll then…

  16. I believe that Mr. Limbaugh hit the nail on the head today when he proposed that instead of Obamacare where you cannot keep your health plan and cannot keep your doctor (despite being lied to about it) we should simply guarantee subsidized health care for the 16 million who do not have it. Certainly a cheaper alternative.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Mathius, If someone hates gays, then so be it. Why can they be discriminated against for believing that way?

  18. I’ve only heard two “success” stories on ACA. One is Buck’s (which is questionable) and the other is this one – a Dem who apparently has no problem that taxpayers subsidize his 33 year-old son’s premiums. Wow!

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/30/dem-congressman-defends-obamacare-i-shouldnt-subsidize-my-son-taxpayers-should

    • Kathy,

      First, why do you qualify my story as questionable?

      Second, if you bothered to read my posts on the subject you would see that I did not proceed to the end. If I decide to I will post my final experience with the site, prices, info requested, etc.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Matius

    Sorry but I strongly disagree with the way you phrased this:

    “Tolerance is definitionally a question of being accepting of people. If you are not accepting, then your reasons are irrelevant – you are intolerant. ”

    I “tolerate” a lot of people whom I do NOT “accept”. These concepts are NOT the same.

    Maybe that is why the leftist makes no sense to us righties. False equivalence of terms.

    P.S. Govt’s do NOT HAVE RIGHTS. They have authority and power.

    P.S.S. In order for a Govt to use power to punish those that discriminate, said Govt has to FIRST TAKE THE RIGHT of Association AWAY from the people.

    P.S.S.S. I still find the Mathius Theory of Bathrooms ABSURD and Obnoxious. I am thinking some day soon you will come to agree with me.

  20. I’m watching Lord of the Rings-I’m curious -what would you rather be based on this movie -would you rather be an elf or a dwarf?

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    I DISAGREE with homosexual MARRIAGE. I do not discriminate based on a group.

    I make my JUDGMENT based on thousands of years of Human Common and Govt laws. All of which recognized the special title for a: “Man and Woman living in Matrimony as Husband and Wife”.

    That title was Married.

    If you want to talk about Govt benefits or privileges granted to the status that is another thing all together. But MARRIAGE is between a Man and Woman.

    • “But MARRIAGE is between a Man and Woman.”

      Only if you’re a Neanderthal … 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Only if you’re a Neanderthal

        Or very religious. Are you discriminating against Christians? It sure sounds like it.

        • One doesn’t have to be religious to believe that marriage is between a man and woman.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            True, but when one claims racism as much as he does, I’ll step up and call him out, he’s a HYPOCRIT! plain and simple

            • I hate to do this G-but calling Charlie a hypocrite is a personal attack. So before we get into another drawn out conversation-Please take it back!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                OK, I take it back. Even if it is true, I shouldn’t say it. You are correct, my apologies again!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Do you think Charlie’s comment was hypocritical?

              • Honestly, I don’t care-I think it’s his opinion. He believes anyone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman is a neanderthal. If he had said all Christians are neanderthals I would be more likely to say his Comment was hypocritical.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Is it discrimination against those who don’t believe in gay marriage?

              • No, I don’t think a personal opinion is discrimination.

              • But I think the real question here isn’t do we discriminate but do we have the right to discriminate.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                VH. Discrimination is based TOTALLY on personal opinion!

              • I would say it was based on one’s actions.

                Gotta go to bed now G-been getting sick for the last 3 days I think tonight it has decided to stop playing games. 🙂

      • Then let me introduce myself-V. Neanderthal , nice to met you.

      • It is more or less accepted that The Neanderthals were disappeared by the Cro-magnons. There was some interbreeding before this happened and we all apparently have some Neanderthal blood in us (2 %). Who is to say that the Cro’s wiped out the Neand’s because the latter practiced gay marriage which from a Darwinian point of view is contra survival and a waste of good mastodon meat?

  22. http://conservativevideos.com/2013/10/hilarious-obamacare-halloween-horror-parody-healthcare-mash/

    Weekend roadtrip first thing in the AM. Thank God! I need it bad. See ya!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      T-Ray, the sad part is that the Lefty politicians and their minions don’t realize that they are winning, so they keep fighting. The Left want to make the rich pay their “fair share”, so the govt made it happen. The Left wanted workers to get higher wages, better bennies etc, and the unions made that happen. For years it worked very well and most people prospered and the middle class exploded.

      Years ahead, the Left kept wanting more and more. More taxes from the rich, higher and higher wages and bennies until finally, the bottom fell out. Those who were under the Left wing gun said to hell with all this and moved their company and jobs overseas. Still, the Left didn’t learn and continue the same boorish rhetoric. The middle class is all but gone, and it’s the rich peoples fault. The govt wants more tax dollars, so they say tax the rich, it’s their fault. Sound like someone we all know? You know, the “it’s someone else’s fault” guy in the White House.

      Let’s face it, the Left will not quit until we are all equally poor, equally sick, equally hungry etc. That’s how fairness is achieved. There is no other way in the eyes of the Liberals, and most don’t even see it. 🙄

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Speaking of equally sick, if Massachusetts is any model of what Obamacare will bring, the people are screwed worse than they think. The doctor shortage that occurred in Mass, will happen everywhere, and then, then the Left want to add 11 million more to the equation. With nearly 30 million more people going on Medicaid because of the ACA, the system will quickly get overwhelmed. Add 11 million more and the poor can forget about getting quality healthcare, their won’t be enough doctors willing to work for minimum wage to do the job.

        Maybe Obama should ask Snowden for forgiveness and bring him back to fix the healthcare.gov website 🙂 Then the number of people who’s premiums will explode will become “Occupy Emergency Rooms”, because that’s what will happen. But, at this point, let’s just go to the single payer system that the Left wants. Maybe after they destroy healthcare like they did the job market, will they learn. What will be next on their list?

  23. Okay, Wingies … it’s a double barrel attack on boff’ parties: She Made It! … Blade of Dishonor … Congrats, Tommy! … Chest Beating 101 … Politics Anyone? … RIP Lou …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2013/11/she-made-it-blade-of-dishonor-congrats.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree with your assessment of Obama, but you were too nice 🙂 Cruz’s father is right on, Obama should go back to Kenya, even if he wasn’t born there 🙂 You shouldn’t rag on chest pounders, after all, they learned from you 🙂 Credit where it’s due: You do write very well and it’s easy to read. PEACE

    • @Colonel … check out the CEO award, my amico … that’s TEXAS, brother … see, even the socialist has capitalist friends … Tommy truly is one of the most generous people you’ll ever meet … good people … if Wall Street could stack itself with Tommy’s, I might return to your side of the fence … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      You have finally found something we agree on.

      I HATE all the chest beating in baseball. And you can add to that the increased tendency to stand there and gloat as the ball leaves the yard. And the “stare downs”. Far to much “look at me” going on for my taste.

      Come to think of it I don’t like this trend in football either.

      Guys going nuts and putting on all kinds of displays for a Single Tackle. Two plays later they blow it and somebody runs right over them.

      This is what you get when the Selfless left wingers dictate the ethical conduct of society. Sorry, just couldn’t help myself. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Here is my contribution to your point about ape behavior. Even the old timers knew better.

  24. November 1, 2013
    Another — really bizarre — Obamacare quirk
    Clarice Feldman

    James Taranto, author of the WSJ’s Best of the Web notes that the only people not required to have maternity coverage in their health insurance are men and women under 30 years old, that is the tranche of the most likely child bearing citizens.

    “First, it’s not only men who are forced to buy maternity coverage they are physically incapable of using. So are women in the stage of life between childbearing age and
    Medicare eligibility.

    “Second, under-30s are exempt. That’s right, the geniuses who wrote ObamaCare are forcing everyone to buy maternity care except the age cohort that includes women at peak fertility.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/another_–_really_bizarre_–_obamacare_quirk.html#ixzz2jOf47oqr
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    Now I wonder why they decided to do this?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Now I wonder why they decided to do this?

      This is what happens when you don’t read laws before you pass them. It’s called “The Pelosi Syndrome” 🙂

      • I don’t think being stupid had anything to do with this decision-this was on.purpose-Now why do you think they wouldn’t insure the people most likely to get pregnant for maternity care but they made sure to cover abortion?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I hope you are feeling better this morning! Being sick is no fun.

    • V.H., you never know when you might need MC. My wife often dreams at night. Usually I get elbow, punch or kick for something I did. Being innocent and sound asleep doesn’t matter. Recently she woke up laughing hysterically. I was pregnant. .

      • He He HE-Once I woke up crying- I had dreamed my husband was set on fire and thrown off a train-I guess I was angry at him when I went to sleep but I was almost hysterical when I woke up so I guess I wasn’t that mad at him-feel lucky your wife only made you pregnant 🙂

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    Yet another fine example of how Liberal ideologies have a negative impact on people. More jobs lost in New York. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/40/31/third-gunmaker-flees-new-york-over-gov-andrew-cuomos-crackdown-n1733853?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

    I’m ranting today, but can anyone prove that I’m wrong?

  26. How would I have solved the healthcare problem:

    1) First go after the low hanging fruit
    a. Tort reform
    b. Medicare/Medicaid fraud
    2) Turn all FSAs into HSAs and expand the program. The investment options should be improved and maintenance fees low. The HSAs could be combined with 401k plans and IRAs. HSAs should be independent of all insurance policies. This way young adults can build for their future needs.
    3) Make all healthcare expenses deductible except optional surgeries such as non reconstructive plastic surgery, sex changes, etc.
    4) Abortion would be an optional expense born by the parents not insurance cos. or government.
    5) Open walk in clinics near most hospital ERs similar to rapid care businesses. These would be funded by government but would accept payments from those that can afford it. This should relieve most of the pressure on ERs who would be able to concentrate on acute cases.
    a. These clinics could be staffed by graduating physicians who would receive a modest salary plus debt reduction. The same could be done for graduating nurses.
    6) Stop mandating the minimum coverage of insurance policies. This is to be negotiated between the customer and the insurance company. Routine maintenance should be out of pocket. Insurance is for catastrophic loss prevention.
    7) Allow small businesses to from insurance purchasing pools.
    8) Permit the sale of insurance across state lines (something that actually fits under the commerce clause)
    9) Encourage medical providers especially hospitals to develop quality plans that address the quality of care, reduction of mistakes, reduction of unnecessary procedures, cost drivers, etc.
    10) Create a standard claim form that physicians and providers can supply to insurance companies Medicare/aide for reimbursement.
    11) Provide itemized statements to all patients.
    12) The hardest one to solve is the preexisting condition problem. This will only get worse as DNA testing becomes more prevalent. Most businesses here in CA that offer insurance must cover employees and family members with preexisting conditions. So if this can be done in a group fashion then why not for individuals as well. Basically insurance companies must treat all individuals in the state as a group of the whole. I have no problem with a 1 or 2 year waiting period unless the individual can show proof of continuous coverage. This leaves the young invincibles who wait until problems arise before purchasing insurance. Maybe a waiting period plus a 30% premium surcharge for the first 5 years (or for how many years they were w/o insurance) would suffice.
    Just my $2 worth (inflated $0.02).

    • gmanfortruth says:

      That all sounds great. You forgot one thing, get govt completely out of the way! I’m still trying ti figure where in the Constitution do the feds get the authority to do what they are doing.

      • Allowing sales of policies across state lines falls under the commerce clause. Fixing the tax code including FSAs and HSAs is part of the federal tax structure. Going after fraud in already existing federal programs is what they should already be doing. Most of the rest can be done by the states w/o federal involvement. I agree, the less government interference, the better off we are.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          T-Ray

          Actually, Health Insurance would not have fit under the commerce clause.

          The only reason we think it would is the CHANGES imposed on the interpretation by the Activist SCOTUS.

          Insurance is not a product transported across state lines. The fact that the parent company is located in NY does not change the fact that your “insurance contract” is actually issued in California. And it is a “contract” not an article of “commerce”. Under original interpretation the Insurance on mercantile goods being “transported” across State lines was included under the Commerce Clause authority. Because said insurance was tied to the goods being transported.

          When people say allow it to be sold across state lines what they are really saying is that the REQUIREMENTS of one state can be ignored by purchasing a product that meets another State’s requirements.

          The entire issue could be resolved by the States adopting the SAME policy standards.

    • Forgot contraception, but basically you play you pay.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    For those of you who will getting involved in the 2014 elections, here is a nice list of Mr. and Mrs. Smokey Pants that are up for reelection. http://www.nrsc.org/blog/13-democrats-that-knew-youd-lose-your-heath-insurance-but-promised

    I personally can’t stomach liars. All of these people on the list should be charged and tried for defrauding the public. A few years in jail for them would go a long way to setting an example of what not to do to the American people.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    A little long but very revealing. Especially some of the comments that follow. I urge everyone to take the time to read and digest it.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/04/1199236/-Game-Theory-as-Applied-to-Messaging-Don-t-Make-the-Other-Side-the-Subject#

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (3 March 1919).

    The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (3 March 1919).

    Oliver W. Holmes.

    Take note of the first quote. Notice how it is MIS-Quoted by many who try to use it to attack free speech today. Including those on the left.

    The part usually over looked is “the most stringent protection”. Which is then explained by the second quote from Holme’s opinion.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    After my comments on not allowing people to vote who do not pay taxes I was curious as to the source or sources of the left wings constant claim about taxes and civilization. I found that the only attribution to the claim, so far, is Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was included in his dissenting opinion on a case involving the Govt taxation of something. I haven’t dug into the case yet, but it looks like it is related to the ACA Roberts arguments.

    Anyhow, thought you would like to see the source of this quote. I also included a “comment” which confirms that the phrase is included on the entrance to the IRS national headquarters. Now if that is not telling I don’t know what is.

    The plaintiff’s reliance is upon Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 S. Ct. 427, in which it was held that a fine could not be imposed by the State for sending a notice similar to the present to an insurance company out of the State. But it seems to me that the tax was justified and that this case is distinguished from that of Allgeyer and from St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346 , 43 S. Ct. 125, by the difference between a penalty and a tax. It is true, as indicated in the last cited case, that every exaction of money for an act is a discouragement to the extent of the payment required, but that which in its immediacy is a discouragement may be part of an encouragement when seen in its organic connection with the whole. Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure. A penalty on the other hand is intended altogether to prevent the thing punished. It readily may be seen that a State may tax things that under the Constitution as interpreted it can not prevent. The constitutional right asserted in Allgeyer v. Louisiana to earn one’s livelihood by any lawful calling certainly is consistent, as we all know, with the calling being taxed.

    Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87 (1927) (here from FindLaw)

    It makes you wonder, though: Did Holmes later add that part about “I like to pay taxes?”

    Donald Morris says:

    April 2, 2011 at 4:42 am

    The quote attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society” and originally phrased as “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” in his dissenting opinion in Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, (1927), appears above the entrance to the Internal Revenue Service headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C..

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    And here is a pretty good rebuttal to the taxes are the price of civilization argument. You will find much consistent with my prior postings on the “proper role” of Govt.

    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-high-a-price-for-civilization#axzz2jPhFnxPT

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Now a little something to make some of our SUFA family smile. My only comment is that Religion is not required for solid morals or ethics. I do recognize, however, that for most in our population religion is viewed as the primary source of morality. I have not need to argue with them over the source, only the moral standards themselves when they appear to be inconsistent with advancing our civility.

    http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-3/civilization-held-together-persuasion-not-force

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    JAC, Going to set up and publish a new thread to speed up loading times. I like to do this around 200 comments or so. Feel free to bring anything forward for discussion.

%d bloggers like this: